Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
On 02/09/2013, at 12:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662730700/1-s2.0-S089662730700-main.pdf?_tid=4e78eb70-1321-11e3-bc23-0aab0f01acdnat=1378052132_997e220cfcf62a6d02d5ccd22660a221 The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to-trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation. The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to- trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation - See more at: http://s33light.org/post/60036139333#sthash.sgzmIpwx.dpufThe resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to- trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation - See more at: http://s33light.org/post/60036139333#sthash.sgzmIpwx.dpuf -- You cing emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
The article doesn't show what you think it shows. Spontaneous doesn't mean what you think it means. On 02/09/2013, at 12:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662730700/1-s2.0-S089662730700-main.pdf?_tid=4e78eb70-1321-11e3-bc23-0aab0f01acdnat=1378052132_997e220cfcf62a6d02d5ccd22660a221 The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to-trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation. The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to- trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation - See more at: http://s33light.org/post/60036139333#sthash.sgzmIpwx.dpufThe resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to- trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation - See more at: http://s33light.org/post/60036139333#sthash.sgzmIpwx.dpuf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
Finally, there was a pronounced difference in the effect of regressing out *spontaneous* activity on the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship with instructed versus *spontaneous * force variability. With *spontaneous * force variability, regression of *spontaneous* (right SMC) activity all but eliminated the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship. In contrast, with instructed force variability regressing out *spontaneous* activity increased the significance of the left SMC BOLD-behavior effect. This improvement in significance suggests that regression of *spontaneous*activity removed noise that was independent of the BOLD-behavior effect in the instructed condition. This finding is important as it shows that an ipsilateral response alone is not sufficient to eliminate the BOLD-behavior effect by regression as seen with* spontaneous* force variability. *In summary, there are three pronounced differences between spontaneous and instructed force variability in the current experiment: (1) the reversal of the time course magnitudes, (2) the difference in the timing of the significant BOLD-behavior effect, and (3) the difference in the effect of regressing out spontaneous activity. As such, we can be relatively confident that spontaneous and instructed force variability represent distinct phenomena in the current experiment. * The study speaks for itself. What I think it means is what the researchers also think it means. I don't know what you could imagine it would mean otherwise. Spontaneous is used here in an ordinary way, not in some obscure medical jargon which somehow actually means anything but spontaneous. The whole experiment is about isolating spontaneous activity from other types of activity which respond to known conditions. You are welcome to explain exactly what you think this study shows in your terms, but don't bother if you are just going to throw out unsupported opinions. Thanks, Craig On Monday, September 2, 2013 11:18:31 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: The article doesn't show what you think it shows. Spontaneous doesn't mean what you think it means. On 02/09/2013, at 12:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662730700/1-s2.0-S089662730700-main.pdf?_tid=4e78eb70-1321-11e3-bc23-0aab0f01acdnat=1378052132_997e220cfcf62a6d02d5ccd22660a221 The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to-trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation. The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to- trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation - See more at: http://s33light.org/post/60036139333#sthash.sgzmIpwx.dpuf The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to- trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation - See more at: http://s33light.org/post/60036139333#sthash.sgzmIpwx.dpuf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
On 9/2/2013 9:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Finally, there was a pronounced difference in the effect of regressing out *spontaneous* activity on the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship with instructed versus *spontaneous * force variability. With *spontaneous* force variability, regression of *spontaneous* (right SMC) activity all but eliminated the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship. In contrast, with instructed force variability regressing out *spontaneous* activity increased the significance of the left SMC BOLD-behavior effect. This improvement in significance suggests that regression of *spontaneous* activity removed noise that was independent of the BOLD-behavior effect in the instructed condition. This finding is important as it shows that an ipsilateral response alone is not sufficient to eliminate the BOLD-behavior effect by regression as seen with*spontaneous* force variability. *In summary, there are three pronounced differences between spontaneous and instructed force variability in the current experiment: (1) the reversal of the time course magnitudes, (2) the difference in the timing of the significant BOLD-behavior effect, and (3) the difference in the effect of regressing out spontaneous activity. As such, we can be relatively confident that spontaneous and instructed force variability represent distinct phenomena in the current experiment. * The study speaks for itself. What I think it means is what the researchers also think it means. I don't know what you could imagine it would mean otherwise. Spontaneous is used here in an ordinary way, not in some obscure medical jargon which somehow actually means anything but spontaneous. The whole experiment is about isolating spontaneous activity from other types of activity which respond to known conditions. You are welcome to explain exactly what you think this study shows in your terms, but don't bother if you are just going to throw out unsupported opinions. It's just like my clock. Every couple of days it gets some external stimuli: I wind it up. In between its activity is all spontaneous. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
On Monday, September 2, 2013 2:35:43 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/2/2013 9:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Finally, there was a pronounced difference in the effect of regressing out *spontaneous* activity on the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship with instructed versus *spontaneous * force variability. With * spontaneous* force variability, regression of *spontaneous* (right SMC) activity all but eliminated the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship. In contrast, with instructed force variability regressing out *spontaneous*activity increased the significance of the left SMC BOLD-behavior effect. This improvement in significance suggests that regression of *spontaneous * activity removed noise that was independent of the BOLD-behavior effect in the instructed condition. This finding is important as it shows that an ipsilateral response alone is not sufficient to eliminate the BOLD-behavior effect by regression as seen with* spontaneous* force variability. *In summary, there are three pronounced differences between spontaneous and instructed force variability in the current experiment: (1) the reversal of the time course magnitudes, (2) the difference in the timing of the significant BOLD-behavior effect, and (3) the difference in the effect of regressing out spontaneous activity. As such, we can be relatively confident that spontaneous and instructed force variability represent distinct phenomena in the current experiment. * The study speaks for itself. What I think it means is what the researchers also think it means. I don't know what you could imagine it would mean otherwise. Spontaneous is used here in an ordinary way, not in some obscure medical jargon which somehow actually means anything but spontaneous. The whole experiment is about isolating spontaneous activity from other types of activity which respond to known conditions. You are welcome to explain exactly what you think this study shows in your terms, but don't bother if you are just going to throw out unsupported opinions. It's just like my clock. Every couple of days it gets some external stimuli: I wind it up. In between its activity is all spontaneous. Except the experiment shows *conclusively* that the activity is the same whether the clocks are wound or not. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
On 9/2/2013 11:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Except the experiment shows *conclusively* that the activity is the same whether the clocks are wound or not. No, it just shows that they run a long time without being wound. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
Hi Craig Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything. Here 'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as 'task unrelated' which is to say it is not activity that is bound to some external task. Daydreaming and remembering past events are common examples. You shouldn't confuse it with the idea of uncaused activity which evidently you have done. All the best. --- Original Message --- From: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com Sent: 3 September 2013 2:48 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior Finally, there was a pronounced difference in the effect of regressing out *spontaneous* activity on the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship with instructed versus *spontaneous * force variability. With *spontaneous * force variability, regression of *spontaneous* (right SMC) activity all but eliminated the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship. In contrast, with instructed force variability regressing out *spontaneous* activity increased the significance of the left SMC BOLD-behavior effect. This improvement in significance suggests that regression of *spontaneous*activity removed noise that was independent of the BOLD-behavior effect in the instructed condition. This finding is important as it shows that an ipsilateral response alone is not sufficient to eliminate the BOLD-behavior effect by regression as seen with* spontaneous* force variability. *In summary, there are three pronounced differences between spontaneous and instructed force variability in the current experiment: (1) the reversal of the time course magnitudes, (2) the difference in the timing of the significant BOLD-behavior effect, and (3) the difference in the effect of regressing out spontaneous activity. As such, we can be relatively confident that spontaneous and instructed force variability represent distinct phenomena in the current experiment. * The study speaks for itself. What I think it means is what the researchers also think it means. I don't know what you could imagine it would mean otherwise. Spontaneous is used here in an ordinary way, not in some obscure medical jargon which somehow actually means anything but spontaneous. The whole experiment is about isolating spontaneous activity from other types of activity which respond to known conditions. You are welcome to explain exactly what you think this study shows in your terms, but don't bother if you are just going to throw out unsupported opinions. Thanks, Craig On Monday, September 2, 2013 11:18:31 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: The article doesn't show what you think it shows. Spontaneous doesn't mean what you think it means. On 02/09/2013, at 12:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662730700/1-s2.0-S089662730700-main.pdf?_tid=4e78eb70-1321-11e3-bc23-0aab0f01acdnat=1378052132_997e220cfcf62a6d02d5ccd22660a221 The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to-trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation. The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity in the left somatomotor cortex and spontaneous trial-to- trial variability in button press force. We then demonstrate that 74% of this brain-behavior relationship is attributable to ongoing fluctuations in intrinsic activity similar to those observed during resting fixation - See more at: http://s33light.org/post/60036139333#sthash.sgzmIpwx.dpuf The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits organized fluctuations in neuronal activity even in the absence of tasks or stimuli. This intrinsic brain activity persists during task performance and contributes to variability in evoked brain responses. What is unknown is if this intrinsic activity also contributes to variability in behavior. In the current fMRI study, we identify a relation- ship between human brain activity
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote: Hi Craig Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything. Here 'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as 'task unrelated' which is to say it is not activity that is bound to some external task. Daydreaming and remembering past events are common examples. You shouldn't confuse it with the idea of uncaused activity which evidently you have done. I highlighted them to show that the word is not being used in any cryptic specialized sense, but rather it is used often, and in the general sense of being wholly unanticipated. Spontaneous in this case means originating in the brain in the absence of external stimuli but it also means originating in the brain in the absence of any known cause. The study goes to considerable lengths to make this clear.. note the gist of the headings: Intrinsic Activity Accounts for Behaviorally Relevant Left SMC BOLD Variance Ruling Out Evoked Activity Ruling Out Stimulus-Evoked Activity Ruling Out Attention and Anticipation and finally, to directly address your claim: Ruling Out Other Potential Confounds While sensory evoked activity and attention/anticipation are the most concerning potential confounds, other mechanisms should be considered. For example, global arousal might cause fluctuations in neuronal activity and behavior. *However, our BOLD-behavior effect should then be present in all regions or at least regions implicated in arousal (Critchley et al., 2000), not localized to the somatomotor system*. Similarly, after-effects such as the BOLD undershoot could persist from the previous trial, influencing early BOLD time points and confounding our results (Buxton et al., 1998). However, this possibility is excluded by the lack of a relationship between our BOLD measurement and ISI. Do daydreaming and remembering take place in the somatomotor system? Probably not. Another conclusion from the study: Finally, it provides support for the intrinsic perspective on brain function, showing that the brain not only exhibits intrinsic organized fluctuations in neuronal activity, but that these fluctuations impact brain function and behavior in interesting and important ways. Not really anything there to support anything that you are claiming. Thanks, Craig All the best. --- Original Message --- From: Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: Sent: 3 September 2013 2:48 AM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Subject: Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior Finally, there was a pronounced difference in the effect of regressing out *spontaneous* activity on the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship with instructed versus *spontaneous *force variability. With *spontaneous*force variability, regression of *spontaneous* (right SMC) activity all but eliminated the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship. In contrast, with instructed force variability regressing out *spontaneous* activity increased the significance of the left SMC BOLD-behavior effect. This improvement in significance suggests that regression of *spontaneous* activity removed noise that was independent of the BOLD-behavior effect in the instructed condition. This finding is important as it shows that an ipsilateral response alone is not sufficient to eliminate the BOLD-behavior effect by regression as seen with * spontaneous* force variability. *In summary, there are three pronounced differences between spontaneous and instructed force variability in the current experiment: (1) the reversal of the time course magnitudes, (2) the difference in the timing of the significant BOLD-behavior effect, and (3) the difference in the effect of regressing out spontaneous activity. As such, we can be relatively confident that spontaneous and instructed force variability represent distinct phenomena in the current experiment. * The study speaks for itself. What I think it means is what the researchers also think it means. I don't know what you could imagine it would mean otherwise. Spontaneous is used here in an ordinary way, not in some obscure medical jargon which somehow actually means anything but spontaneous. The whole experiment is about isolating spontaneous activity from other types of activity which respond to known conditions. You are welcome to explain exactly what you think this study shows in your terms, but don't bother if you are just going to throw out unsupported opinions. Thanks, Craig On Monday, September 2, 2013 11:18:31 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: The article doesn't show what you think it shows. Spontaneous doesn't mean what you think it means. On 02/09/2013, at 12:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662730700/1-s2.0-S089662730700-main.pdf?_tid
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
On 9/2/2013 3:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote: Hi Craig Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything. Here 'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as 'task unrelated' which is to say it is not activity that is bound to some external task. Daydreaming and remembering past events are common examples. You shouldn't confuse it with the idea of uncaused activity which evidently you have done. I highlighted them to show that the word is not being used in any cryptic specialized sense, but rather it is used often, and in the general sense of being wholly unanticipated. Spontaneous in this case means originating in the brain in the absence of external stimuli but it also means originating in the brain in the absence of any known cause. Absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The study goes to considerable lengths to make this clear.. note the gist of the headings: Intrinsic Activity Accounts for Behaviorally Relevant Left SMC BOLD Variance Ruling Out Evoked Activity Ruling Out Stimulus-Evoked Activity Ruling Out Attention and Anticipation and finally, to directly address your claim: Ruling Out Other Potential Confounds While sensory evoked activity and attention/anticipation are the most concerning potential confounds, other mechanisms should be considered. For example, global arousal might cause fluctuations in neuronal activity and behavior. *However, our BOLD-behavior effect should then be present in all regions or at least regions implicated in arousal (Critchley et al., 2000), not localized to the somatomotor system*. Similarly, after-effects such as the BOLD undershoot could persist from the previous trial, influencing early BOLD time points and confounding our results (Buxton et al., 1998). However, this possibility is excluded by the lack of a relationship between our BOLD measurement and ISI. Do daydreaming and remembering take place in the somatomotor system? Probably not. HA! You never had a daydream that produced an erection? Another conclusion from the study: Finally, it provides support for the intrinsic perspective on brain function, showing that the brain not only exhibits intrinsic organized fluctuations in neuronal activity, but that these fluctuations impact brain function and behavior in interesting and important ways. Not really anything there to support anything that you are claiming. And there's nothing to support the thesis that the brain activity is not part of a causal chain extending back to the embryo. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
Hi Craig your biases are protecting your theory from threats with a vengeance! I highlighted them to show that the word is not being used in any cryptic specialized sense No one is arguing that the use of 'spontaneous' is cryptic but rather that you have not understood the way they are using it. That's a big difference. They do have a specific sense in mind though, there is a whole field of study around spontaneous activity and the meaning is abundantly clear from reading that: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627307007192 This “default-mode network” is believed to represent brain regions that are more active during rest. Since the correlated fluctuations within the resting state networks occur in the absence of an explicit task, they are often referred to as “spontaneous” or “task-unrelated” fluctuations. but it also means originating in the brain in the absence of any known cause. The study goes to considerable lengths to make this clear.. note the gist of the headings: Intrinsic Activity Accounts for Behaviorally Relevant Left SMC BOLD Variance Ruling Out Evoked Activity Ruling Out Stimulus-Evoked Activity Ruling Out Attention and Anticipation and finally, to directly address your claim: Ruling Out Other Potential Confounds Craig, part of any half decent study involves ruling out confounding factors which might interfere with the measurement of the phenomenon under scrutiny. What is being ruled out in these sections are not causes of the spontaneous activity, but alternative sources of the fMRI signals they measured. They rule out that the signals were not in fact 'stimulus evoked', they were not signals dues to changes in attention, etc. They are just isolating the phenomenon. The causes of spontaneous/task-unrelated fluctuations is not even addressed. Not really anything there to support anything that you are claiming. You brought the study up not me. It supposed to be supporting your claims. It doesn't support anything though, because it is not addressing the causes or lack of causes of spontaneous/task-unrelated fluctuation. Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:31:57 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior On 9/2/2013 3:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote: Hi Craig Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything. Here 'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as 'task unrelated' which is to say it is not activity that is bound to some external task. Daydreaming and remembering past events are common examples. You shouldn't confuse it with the idea of uncaused activity which evidently you have done. I highlighted them to show that the word is not being used in any cryptic specialized sense, but rather it is used often, and in the general sense of being wholly unanticipated. Spontaneous in this case means originating in the brain in the absence of external stimuli but it also means originating in the brain in the absence of any known cause. Absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. The study goes to considerable lengths to make this clear.. note the gist of the headings: Intrinsic Activity Accounts for Behaviorally Relevant Left SMC BOLD Variance Ruling Out Evoked Activity Ruling Out Stimulus-Evoked Activity Ruling Out Attention and Anticipation and finally, to directly address your claim: Ruling Out Other Potential Confounds While sensory evoked activity and attention/anticipation are the most concerning potential confounds, other mechanisms should be considered. For example, global arousal might cause fluctuations in neuronal activity and behavior. However, our BOLD-behavior effect should then be present in all regions or at least regions implicated in arousal (Critchley et al., 2000), not localized to the somatomotor system. Similarly, after-effects such as the BOLD undershoot could persist from the previous trial, influencing early BOLD time points and confounding our results (Buxton et al., 1998). However, this possibility is excluded by the lack of a relationship between our BOLD measurement and ISI. Do daydreaming and remembering take place in the somatomotor system? Probably not. HA! You never had a daydream
Re: Spontaneous Brain Activity Controls Behavior
On Monday, September 2, 2013 7:54:45 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/2/2013 4:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, September 2, 2013 7:31:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/2/2013 3:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote: Hi Craig Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything. Here 'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as 'task unrelated' which is to say it is not activity that is bound to some external task. Daydreaming and remembering past events are common examples. You shouldn't confuse it with the idea of uncaused activity which evidently you have done. I highlighted them to show that the word is not being used in any cryptic specialized sense, but rather it is used often, and in the general sense of being wholly unanticipated. Spontaneous in this case means originating in the brain in the absence of external stimuli but it also means originating in the brain in the absence of any known cause. Absence of knowledge is not knowledge of absence. Sure, but absence of knowledge about brain activity cannot be construed to rule out personal intention. Spontaneous can mean exactly what it implies. The study goes to considerable lengths to make this clear.. note the gist of the headings: Intrinsic Activity Accounts for Behaviorally Relevant Left SMC BOLD Variance Ruling Out Evoked Activity Ruling Out Stimulus-Evoked Activity Ruling Out Attention and Anticipation and finally, to directly address your claim: Ruling Out Other Potential Confounds While sensory evoked activity and attention/anticipation are the most concerning potential confounds, other mechanisms should be considered. For example, global arousal might cause fluctuations in neuronal activity and behavior. *However, our BOLD-behavior effect should then be present in all regions or at least regions implicated in arousal (Critchley et al., 2000), not localized to the somatomotor system*. Similarly, after-effects such as the BOLD undershoot could persist from the previous trial, influencing early BOLD time points and confounding our results (Buxton et al., 1998). However, this possibility is excluded by the lack of a relationship between our BOLD measurement and ISI. Do daydreaming and remembering take place in the somatomotor system? Probably not. HA! You never had a daydream that produced an erection? Are you suggesting that the presence of spontaneous activity in the somatomotor system is more likely to indicate daydreams that cause button pushing behavior? It couldn't be the simple, obvious cause of our own personal intent. Of course it could be the cause of your intent. The activity isn't the cause of our intent, I mean that our intent is the cause of (some of) the activity. Must be some ridiculous sideshow. Another conclusion from the study: Finally, it provides support for the intrinsic perspective on brain function, showing that the brain not only exhibits intrinsic organized fluctuations in neuronal activity, but that these fluctuations impact brain function and behavior in interesting and important ways. Not really anything there to support anything that you are claiming. And there's nothing to support the thesis that the brain activity is not part of a causal chain extending back to the embryo. There's nothing to support the thesis that the brain activity is part of a causal chain either. Sure there is, the detailed study of neurons and other brain structures which all points to them obeying exactly the same physics as everything else. Without a completed physics, we have no idea what that means. Human intention is part of everything else. Spontaneous activity is part of physics. All that we know is that when we measure neuronal activity personally, it looks like images, sounds like music, etc. When we measure it with instruments which are deaf to music and blind to images, we get narrowly quantitative measures. That should not be a surprise. The surprise is why anyone would presume that it means that the blind instruments must be correct, and that our own direct experience must be an 'illusion'...which is somehow other than physics in some sense, yet can only be physics in another. What I would say supports the thesis that the brain activity may originate in the private, intentional experience of the individual, is the fact that we, you know, experience private intentional experiences as individuals...pretty much every waking moment. Where's the evidence that experience is not part of the causal chain? The evidence is that we can tell the difference between something that we are doing intentionally and something we are doing accidentally. Our ordinary experience
